Trump was wrong on Stop and Frisk; let me count the ways

Among the many ways that Trump was wrong, or outright lied, in the first presidential debate was on Stop and Frisk – among many other topics.

Stop an Frisk does not work, as well as being unconstitutional.   Trump knows, or should know, that to be true.  Instead he persists in defending the indefensible.

The fourth amendment guarantees against the overreach of governmental authority, which conservatives give empty lip service claims to valuing:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

And the NYC Civil Liberties Union found that Stop and Frisk erodes community confidence in the police, while NOT being effective in stopping crime. Effectively, there is no up side, while there is a significant down side to stop and frisk.

“While violent crimes fell 29 percent in New York City from 2001 to 2010, other large cities experienced larger violent crime declines without relying on stop and frisk abuses: 59 percent in Los Angeles, 56 percent in New Orleans, 49 percent in Dallas, and 37 percent in Baltimore.”